Saint Paul logo
File #: RES 16-1957    Version: 1
Type: Resolution Status: Passed
In control: City Council
Final action: 11/9/2016
Title: Memorializing the Council's decision to grant the appeal by Keith Eklund from a decision of the BZA to grant variances to construct a single family home at 492 Bay Street.
Sponsors: Rebecca Noecker
Attachments: 1. Exhibit A - June 15th 2016 BZA Staff Report
Related files: ABZA 16-6
Title
Memorializing the Council's decision to grant the appeal by Keith Eklund from a decision of the BZA to grant variances to construct a single family home at 492 Bay Street.

Body
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2016, Shannon Ingham (“Applicant”), duly applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”), in BZA File No. 16-047761, for several variances from the strict application of the zoning code for the purpose of constructing a new, single-family dwelling on a vacant lot zoned RM1and located at the southeast corner of Bay and Randolph which is commonly known as 492 Bay Street, legally described as Scheffers Addition W 2 Ft Of Lot 7 And All Of Lot 8 Blk 2. [PIN No. 112823410039]; and
WHEREAS, Applicant’s dwelling, as proposed, required the following variances: (1) Leg. Code § 66.231(a) requires 4-foot sideyard setbacks: Applicant proposed a 2.5-foot setback from the west property line and a 1-foot setback from the east property line requiring, respectively, variances of 1.5 feet and 3 feet. (2) Leg. Code § 66.231(a) requires a 25-foot rearyard setback: Applicant proposed a 22-foot setback which required a variance of 3-feet. (3) Leg. Code § 66.233 requires the building width on any side of a single-family dwelling to be at least 22-feet wide: Applicant’s proposed home was 20.2 feet wide which required a building-width variance of 1.8 feet; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2016, the BZA, with four members present, duly conducted a public hearing on the said application where all persons interested were afforded an opportunity to be heard and, upon the close of the public hearing and further discussion of the matter a motion was made to deny the variances as recommended in the BZA’s staff report dated June 15, 2016 which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, that motion failed for a lack of a second whereupon a motion was duly made which resulted in the matter being continued to July 18, 2016 when more than four BZA members would ...

Click here for full text
Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
No records to display.